El-Bibany, H (1997) Parametric constraint management in planning and scheduling: Computational basis. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 123(3), pp. 348-353. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Critical path methods (CPM) have long been used as the computational basis for computer scheduling systems. The basic computational methodology in CPM proved to be inadequate to represent and integrate more problems in project management. The main reason is that the methodology is built on a computational procedure that is specific to the underlying network representation. Various knowledge-based techniques have been used to provide a richer computational methodology. The main goal of this paper is to describe the computational basis of a constraint-management methodology as applied to planning and scheduling. Each problem may be represented by interrelating its parameters using construction duration and precedence knowledge. The parameter relationships may be viewed as mathematical constraints. The paper provides a description of the computational methodology including the constraint modeling process, the graph representation of constraints, and the evaluation of constraint networks. The methodology may result in multiple solutions based on the nature of graph representation. Therefore, the paper proceeds to prove that only the acceptable computational solution represents the appropriate project plan and schedule. The paper concludes by commenting on the utility of the methodology and providing directions for future research.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | duration, project management, critical path method, constraint modelling, methodology, scheduling |
| Subjects: | project controls, research methods, project management theory and practice, operations research, analytical methods |
| Topics: | Time Control, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Project Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here